Less thought, more jesus.

RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

7 posts in until the first monumentally-idiotic comment. What took so long?

/this post was typed from a divine keyboard of jesusing and transmitted via the holyghostertubes

RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

When private industry has no profit motive to fund something that is potentially useful, who else is there but the Feds? Don't forget that a great deal of things that are now being profitably done by private enterprise were originally researched by Federal laboratories. Even space travel is now a field for private investment, but there is no way any private enterprise could possibly have done all the research and engineering that made this possible. Today's pharmaceutical industry would be a tenth as profitable if they had been forced to privately do the research the government paid for.

But please go ahead and live in your perfect world of restricted, small and unregulatory government. If the GOP has their way, you might even live to see your dream come true.

CravenMorehead: Carl

Hell, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at this point. Can't have Star Wars without the science that makes Star Wars possible

"What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is. " ~Ronald Reagan (1983-03-23)

PJ_the_Barbarian: Merkin For The Weekend: PJ_the_Barbarian: Merkin For The Weekend: PJ_the_Barbarian: Dr Jack Badofsky: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

... I am guessing the GOP wants to see India and China pull ahead of us in that respect

.

Actually, unions would prefer to see Eastern nations pull ahead, since their utter refusal to take pay cuts in any way, shape, or form will continue to force labor out of the U.S. where it is cheaper so you can still buy your toaster for $12.99, and not $129.99

Union membership is too low for them to really be good scapegoats for the economy at large.

Unions and the Labor Movement are the best things that ever happened to this country. They are the reason we have (had) a strong middle class, they are the reasons that none of us had to go to work in factories at nine years old, they are the reasons that our workplaces have to be safe, they are the reasons that we have protections in case we do get injured at work, etc, etc.

Ahahahabullshiat.

Unions are a monopoly seller of labor, as prone to abusing market power as any other monopoly, and are justified in any scenario when buyers of labor have market power, but not outside of that case.

I agree that the AFL-CIO is too big and too corrupt, and could stand to be split up. However, I don't think that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. Just because labor unions are far from perfect doesn't mean that the alternative (no labor unions) is better.

Certainly and I apologize for the expletive. Company towns needed unions. Government employees probably need a union. Etc.

But I can imagine a world where auto workers still have it pretty good, and the big 3 are still world class. And I think it's fair to say that the creation of a serious us vs. them, blues vs. whites, stick it to 'em because they're all thieves sitting on piles of money attitude helped to prevent that.

It is unfair to dump the problems of Detroit on the shoulders of the unions. The big three stuck their collective heads in the sand, stopped innovating, took their fingers off of the pulse of what american consumers wanted, and thought that they could sell us cars that looked ugly, ran poorly, broke down too much, were made of substandard materials, and were designed to be junked after 80 to 100 thousand miles, if they lasted that long. If the american automakers had managed to stay relevant and had managed to build cars as well as they did in the forties, fifties, and sixties, they would have continued to thrive. Take a look at the cars that GM and Ford have offered to the overseas markets over the last thirty years, and compare them to the cars they sold us. They purposely gave us the short end of the stick, thinking that we would buy anything they tried to sell us. Also, they were competing against countries that had national healthcare systems, whereas they had to bear the burden of their employees' health care. I don't think health care is an unreasonable demand.

Far be it from me to side with Republicans, but maybe the U.S. should consider getting that ridiculous deficit under control before committing $40B in new spending.

Callous: "It's not that we can't afford it, we don't have the money for it because we spend too much on stupid BS."

Then I suppose the disagreement is about what constitutes "stupid BS". Basic science research does not fall under that category, in my view. You've got to spend money to make money, and historically our investments in science have yielded tremendous returns.

PJ_the_Barbarian - GAT_00: The media plays by the GOP's dance card.



Wow. The Chomsky-conservative-media theory I can at least understand the basics of, even if I don't necessarily buy it. Namely:

"The media has a conservative bias because it supports the status quo and never seriously considers a radical shift towards socialism or the end of capitalism"

But that same theory would call the democrats a center-right party.

I've never heard anyone try to say that the media is in the GOP's pocket. Because that's ridiculous.


Seriously... I mean like next you'll tell me that General Electric owns a major network, or that advertisers who spend billions per year may actually exert some sway over editorial policy, or that major multinational media megacorporations with a multitude of holdings directly benefit from a business-friendly FCC or deregulated financial markets...

Absurd.

devioustrevor: Far be it from me to side with Republicans, but maybe the U.S. should consider getting that ridiculous deficit under control before committing $40B in new spending.

I don't think that anyone in this thread is pro out of control deficit. However, science funding is a great investment. There are lots of things that could and should be cut before we cut science funding.

How much would spending this 47 billion benefit the common citizen verses spending $3 dollars and 18 cents late fees at a public library?

devioustrevor: Far be it from me to side with Republicans, but maybe the U.S. should consider getting that ridiculous deficit under control before committing $40B in new spending.

Our deficit isn't that ridiculous. And this spending is for science research, not just some anonymous "new spending" you can disregard out-of-hand. Science is pivotal to us regaining our footing in the world economy, especially with the wave of green technology already washing in.

Dear Federal Government:

Please stop spending my money. My roads, schools, hospitals and fire trucks are covered by the state and local government through my property and sales tax.

I don't need anything else and you certainly aren't capable of spending my money more wisely than I do.

Thanks,

Matt

make me some tea: So, the GOP cuts science funding, and Dems cut manned space flight.

Why do politicians hate cool stuff?

In the interest of being fair and balanced, it was almost equally farked up that the dems cut manned space flight. The only reason that it wasn't truly equally farked up is because of the right wing's hatred of all things science.

make me some tea: So, the GOP cuts science funding, and Dems cut manned space flight.

Why do politicians hate cool stuff?

Probably because they're mostly from legal or business backgrounds, and failed calculus freshman year in college.

RobertBruce [TotalFark] 2010-05-19 07:12:59 PM
Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

Government for the people and by the people can only be progressive. How about we stop tax subsidies to big oil and pay for this, in fact every school program in the country could be funded just by stopping this one corporate welfare program.

make me some tea: "So, the GOP cuts science funding, and Dems cut manned space flight."

Obama reversed himself on that. The funding has been not only restored, but increased.

un4gvn666: Our deficit isn't that ridiculous.

Wait, what?!? Say that again - I want to see you do it with a straight face.

upright_apes_r_us: How much would spending this 47 billion benefit the common citizen verses spending $3 dollars and 18 cents late fees at a public library?

That is a pathetic, piss-poor argument. Does every person that spends leisure time at the library regularly use that knowledge to develop viable new technologies or cure life-threatening diseases? Not everything caters to the "common citizen," and for good reason. Try again.

Vangor: NannyStatePark: Did you ever go shopping with a kid and have to tell them "No, we don't have enough money to buy everything you want." And then they get to the candy at the checkout and throw a fit?

Science and technology are the candy during checkout? Somehow, I think the analogy would be more apt if you were the parent buying candy, the deluxe edition of Avatar, scented candles, and a twelve pack of Natty light while telling your child you don't have money to waste on store-brand yogurt.

You have a well designed lateen sail.

That's it GOP. You crossed the farking line. This is the SOLE reason I support Obama - technology spending. Technology is the future, its the key to renewable resources and robots that jack you off. If a stupid shiat senator can't figure out the importance of science then they should be replaced by someone that HAS passed the 4th grade.

DAMNIT this pisses me off, this is the only farking thing I wanted my taxes to go to. fark you GOPfark you douches

Callous: "I was arguing that it's one of the things we should be spending money on that we are pissing away elsewhere."

My bad, I get you now.

Zamboro: make me some tea: "So, the GOP cuts science funding, and Dems cut manned space flight."

Obama reversed himself on that. The funding has been not only restored, but increased.

Wooooo MARS biatches!

/That was one of the few things Bush was right about, too.

devioustrevor: Far be it from me to side with Republicans, but maybe the U.S. should consider getting that ridiculous deficit under control before committing $40B in new spending.

Irrelevant. The question is (and always should be) what's the cost of not spending the money, or, alternatively, what's the projected ROI?

/you take on a project if it gives adequate returns
//deficit be damned
///the rest of the world isn't going to benevolently and patiently wait for us and not move forward
//in any case, if we're worried about deficits -- $40B/yr could easily be cut from our outrageous military budget
/fark all the cost-plus contracts out there

bobadooey: That's it GOP. You crossed the farking line. This is the SOLE reason I support Obama - technology spending. Technology is the future, its the key to renewable resources and robots that jack you off. If a stupid shiat senator can't figure out the importance of science then they should be replaced by someone that HAS passed the 4th grade.

DAMNIT this pisses me off, this is the only farking thing I wanted my taxes to go to. fark you GOPfark you douches

It is good to see someone who is up front about his priorities.

Zamboro: Callous: "It's not that we can't afford it, we don't have the money for it because we spend too much on stupid BS."

Then I suppose the disagreement is about what constitutes "stupid BS". Basic science research does not fall under that category, in my view. You've got to spend money to make money, and historically our investments in science have yielded tremendous returns.

The problem is always that no one can agree what is BS because the more money they spend, the more people have a finger in the pie. The NSF and NIH are already funded to tens of billions. Why not spend 120 billion instead of 40 more? Maybe well get a cure for cancer and fusion energy?

Doesn't work that way. there are diminishing returns and it's not worth borrowing against the future to pay for it. In fact that is stupid.

amaranthe: un4gvn666: Our deficit isn't that ridiculous.

Wait, what?!? Say that again - I want to see you do it with a straight face.

It's. Not. That. Bad. Certainly not bad enough to curb science research, not when we need the jobs.

Zamboro - Callous: "It's not that we can't afford it, we don't have the money for it because we spend too much on stupid BS."


Then I suppose the disagreement is about what constitutes "stupid BS". Basic science research does not fall under that category, in my view. You've got to spend money to make money, and historically our investments in science have yielded tremendous returns.



Pffft... You don't know anything about economics. You can't spend money you don't have. Like Dave Ramsey says... "Act your wage!" America should eat bologna and cancel cable till we get our debt paid off, and then we should cut up all our credit accounts or put them in a jar of water and freeze them.

If America has to postpone college and work at the record store for a few years while it saves up money, then it will build America's character and America will appreciate its schooling way more than those countries whose education was just handed to them.

I wish we could fund this more than most shiat the government throws money at, but we are farkING BROKE.

Everybody I've ever met, except the brain damaged ones, know that when you're swimming in debt and your income is dwindling, you STOP SPENDING. Everybody except Congress and our current president, apparently.

They seem to think that they can always 'get the money from somebody else who has more than they need'.

Well, here's the inconvenient truth, folks... Our government has run out of other peoples' money.

One of my favorite videos about Republicans vs Democrats & science budgets, from one of my favorite scientists:
Link

un4gvn666: devioustrevor: Far be it from me to side with Republicans, but maybe the U.S. should consider getting that ridiculous deficit under control before committing $40B in new spending.

Our deficit isn't that ridiculous. And this spending is for science research, not just some anonymous "new spending" you can disregard out-of-hand. Science is pivotal to us regaining our footing in the world economy, especially with the wave of green technology already washing in.

The U.S. deficit is well over $1,000,000,000,000. The U.S. deficit is roughly the same size as the entire economy of Canada or South Korea. That is a ridiculous amount any way you slice it.

Zamboro:

Spot on ...

----

I'll only add that 40B isn't even a slow leak on the fed budget yet funding scientific research is one of the few areas of gov spending that has any true hope of returning anything (from the investment viewpoint).

And only the gov has the resources to fund wholly "hunh, I wonder if ..." research.

So this is how all these poli sci majors are getting back at the science majors.

lefande: Dear Federal Government:

Please stop spending my money. My roads, schools, hospitals and fire trucks are covered by the state and local government through my property and sales tax.

I don't need anything else and you certainly aren't capable of spending my money more wisely than I do.

Thanks,

Matt

You must live in an unusually affluent community, because few municipalities can afford something as costly as a fire truck without substantial financing, and the cost of most state roads and bridges is 80% federally subsidised. It's very unlikely that your local and state taxes fully fund the costly items you mention.

Guess you wish you hadn't snickered so much when we said 'creation science' don't you?

In other news, Salon.com is still around....

$40BN should buy a lot of bibles

un4gvn666: amaranthe: un4gvn666: Our deficit isn't that ridiculous.

Wait, what?!? Say that again - I want to see you do it with a straight face.

It's. Not. That. Bad. Certainly not bad enough to curb science research, not when we need the jobs.

It. Is. That. Bad.
This thread just proves that liberals don't give a damn about the debt, they pay lip service like their fearless leader

vartian: RobertBruce: vartian: RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

Where in the constitution does it say congressmen can funnel billions for useless military programs in their home state? Start getting rid of those first and we can talk about basic scientific research.

I'll wait.

No I agree with you. Cut that shiat out too.

Really? Okay, well my apologies, I misjudged you. Question then: what do you think we should spend money on? No snark, actually curious.

Useful military programs!

RockIsDead:

Good logical answer!

Typical deluded Leftie!

I thought you were joking, because.. well, let's face it. Look at what you wrote.

And while you're at it, look at what else I've posted in this thread. Just to make you feel even more dumb than usual about your response, I mean.

make me some tea: So, the GOP cuts science funding, and Dems cut manned space flight.

Why do politicians hate cool stuff?

We can do tons more - in terms of both scientific and economic ROI - with unmanned/robotic voyages ATM. Insisting on manned missions is sheer hubris.

/yeah, manned is farking cooler than robots
//but let's just hold off until this 30-yr-in-the-making reaganomics economic debacle gets fixed
/MOAR ROBOTS @_@ beep